"Natural Wines"

[Scooter68]

True. Sometimes all that 'protection' masks the natural flavors. Much as I prefer wild Blackberries and Wild Black Raspberries over their domesticated relatives. And it may be that those tasting those wines are a bit on the snobbish side and are 'detecting' things stripped out of many commercial wines. Whatever the case, if that natural nature of their wines is more enjoyable to them - good for them. I'll just focus on trying not to screw up my batches with off tastes created by imbalances in my must or 'sensitive' yeasts.

(Maybe I should change my quote line to: Instant coffee + Non-dairy Creamer + Artificial Sweetener =
"Better living through Chemicals" I don't think so. )

 

[stickman]

At some point people have to agree on what "natural" is. What is considered manipulation? Do we have to go back to a clay pot? Is glass and stainless acceptable? What about in the vineyard, can we drop fruit to limit yields? Is there a certain type of trellis that is acceptable or unacceptable? Clones and root-stock? Seems like everything is manipulated to some extent.

 

[balatonwine]

As Gene Autry said to his horse Trigger: Whoa!!!!!

I wander how many people criticizing "natural wines" have actually tried that many. Or are just bashing based on this article alone?

 

[balatonwine]

What I saw in that article were several points about cloudy wines with sediment and 'unusual' flavors and aromas.

First of all, this was an article from "The Guardian". A news source known for its click bait, even when they report on a serious topic. So of course they would start with "cloudy wine". But most of the types of wine that the article is actually describing is neither cloudy or has "off flavors" if properly made. The trick is, of course, that making wine while eshewing modern chemicals, et al, is more difficult and more likely to fail. But the results can be quite interesting.

but to many of us I think we just want to have more control over the wine and a wine that is still attractive in the glass.

I admit, that many here are hobbyist and want to control as much as possible in their wine making to create a wine that is, perhaps, familiar to them, and comparable to available commercially. That is fine. No problem. But to assume a wine made without doing this amount of control is "unattractive" is questionable. I have had some very amazing so called "natural wines". Some were only "okay". Which is exactly what I can say about "modern" made wines. In short, beware judging too much until you actually try some.

I guess one way would be to say that to some extent the article painted a picture of those natural wines being almost like that first health drink I was first given - tasted a bit nasty even though it was supposed to be good for me.

I did not get that overall impression per se. Rather, the idea of making wines like this is to make the wine making process better for the yeast, the wine itself, you indirectly by fewer pesticide use, polluting soils and water for example (i.e. helping the environment).

At the risk of rambling - I recall taking trips to historic villages and tasting food prepared in the same way as it was 'back in the day.' Perhaps, that's what the natural wine movement is about. I just think that like that historic village food offering, If it has a good flavor great, but if it has some strange flavors or looks, maybe that isn't a great thing to bring back.

Agreed. So you tried some traditional food. But have you actually tried enough traditionally made wines, from a variety of producers to judge their actual quality? Or are you judging without experience?

 

[balatonwine]

just one more view point. This is embraced return to 6,000 year old winemaking techniques.

While we are at it, why not return to 6,000 year old government, or 6,000 year old food, or 6,000 year old medicine?

The good old days were not so good!

One can say that the modern fuel injected engine is far superior to engines that came before.

But there are many people who love and restore hit and miss engines. Or old cars. Or even steam engines.

Everything does not have to be modern. Some people like living and working with old technology. For many reasons. Personally, I prefer hand tools to power tools. Grew up enamored by Roy Underhills Woodwright's Shop. Something old is also not necessarily inferior. Simply different.

In short: Each to their own. Everyone has their own preferences. For example, some people here might have someone stomp with their feet to crush some grapes. That is a real 6,000 year old wine making method. Nice. But, I personally would never do that. I prefer a modern crusher. But that's just me.

 

[JohnT]

As Gene Autry said to his horse Trigger: Whoa!!!!!

Don't you mean... "Whoa!!! Roy Rogers wants to hang me for stealing his horse"?? LOL


but seriously,

@balatonwine , I think that you are making the best point of all here. I have to admit that I am guilty of allowing the author's judgment of the wine override my own judgment. You are right, who am I to judge when I have not actually tasted it.

Thanks for the reality check!

 

[Johnd]

Been doing some digging around about "natural" wines, and found an interesting article from Decanter which, in the apparent absence of an official definition, provided the following general criteria :

"After collating the responses, we came up with our own Decanter charter of quality for natural wines which we used as a basis for entry:

• Vineyards farmed organically or biodynamically – certification was strongly preferred, but uncertified wines were accepted
• Hand-harvested only
• Fermentation with indigenous (wild) yeasts
• No enzymes
• No additives added (such as acid, tannin, colouring) other than SO2
• SO2 levels no higher than 70mg/l total
• Unfined, and no (or light) filtration
• No other heavy manipulation (such as spinning cone, reverse osmosis, cryoextraction, rapid-finishing, Ultraviolet C irradiation)"

Seems to me, that based on these criteria, some very fine wines are produced, and several vineyards that I've visited and regularly buy wine from produce exceptional wines under these criteria, particularly when the grapes come out of the field just right. For me, the only production methods that are troublesome at home are risk aversion in using wild yeast and my desire to use enzymes for extraction, and have had plenty wines that haven't been acid adjusted. Lots of vineyards are farming organically and biodynamically, and harvesting by hand, processes which I'm in favor of, but it's not that important when buying grapes.

Guess my point really is that using the criteria above, natural wine doesn't need to be tart, sour or cloudy, nor does it have to be sulfite free, though I suspect that the natural wine "purists" would disagree with some of the Decanter criteria.

 

[Americanhooch]

I'm with balatonwine on this one.

I'm just starting to explore the area of "natural" wine (I think that's a controversial term even within the category). But for a long time, Coturri has been up there with my favorite winemakers — even higher if you factor in the affordability of their baseline Red. Coturri is a bit on the extreme end of the "don't mess around with additives or fancy modern techniques" range, but folks like Harrington Wines or Littorai which are on the more minimalist end of the spectrum also do some really great stuff.

That said, I've tasted some of the things in the "natural" category that just aren't to my liking, so this is not some sort of thing that I want everyone following and we should be no means look down on folks who do things with modern techniques. If they make great wine, that's all that really matters. Winemakers are experimenting with reducing the chemicals and intervention and many are getting good results — and that's a good thing.

Now, on my own stuff, I ain't nearly confident or talented enough to even think about going down this road!

 

[REDRUM]

'Natural wine' is a very broad category. There is some that is cloudy and tart - but, then again, there are some that like wines that are cloudy and tart (think a Belgian Lambic beer or a farmhouse cider). There is some that is oxidised and cruddy yet sells for $40 a bottle or something because it's cool.
But there is also some very, very good natural wine around. If the grapes are properly ripened with good tannin / acid / sugar balance, free of disease, and properly handled with care, they should contain all the ingredients necessary for production as a high-quality wine without the need for additives of any kind. That might be one of the appeals for some people - that you have to get everything right, with no shortcuts, and so it promotes good practice in the vineyard & winery.
Recently I had dinner at a restaurant that paired a degustation menu with natural wines. .. a couple were way off my tastes, a couple were bloody delicious and presented flavours I hadn't encountered before. That's reason enough for me to think they have a place, even if they're not something I'd buy regularly.
As for the 6,000-year-old wine argument ... surely some of it was pretty good, otherwise you wouldn't have the ancient poets rhapsodizing about it ..

 

[CK55]

'Natural wine' is a very broad category. There is some that is cloudy and tart - but, then again, there are some that like wines that are cloudy and tart (think a Belgian Lambic beer or a farmhouse cider). There is some that is oxidised and cruddy yet sells for $40 a bottle or something because it's cool.
But there is also some very, very good natural wine around. If the grapes are properly ripened with good tannin / acid / sugar balance, free of disease, and properly handled with care, they should contain all the ingredients necessary for production as a high-quality wine without the need for additives of any kind. That might be one of the appeals for some people - that you have to get everything right, with no shortcuts, and so it promotes good practice in the vineyard & winery.
Recently I had dinner at a restaurant that paired a degustation menu with natural wines. .. a couple were way off my tastes, a couple were bloody delicious and presented flavours I hadn't encountered before. That's reason enough for me to think they have a place, even if they're not something I'd buy regularly.
As for the 6,000-year-old wine argument ... surely some of it was pretty good, otherwise you wouldn't have the ancient poets rhapsodizing about it ..

Yep

 

[Venatorscribe]

Yeah, kinda hard to get very excited about something that the tongue wants to reject at first taste - even with some 'experience' in tasting that 'wine.'

As to leaving everything in... sorry but that just makes no sense. After all we aren't making a 'health-food' beverage so those bits and pieces don't add to the enjoyable flavor. Especially in light of what we know about seeds and other parts of the grape or fruit.

It almost sounds like the idea of "If it tastes nasty, it must be good for you" medicine.

So true. It is taking us back to medieval monastery days.

 

[BernardSmith]

So true. It is taking us back to medieval monastery days.

But you know, that argument - and the claim that some make that we are going back to a time when we knew nothing about fermentation - a claim that the large breweries tend to levy against craft brewers and their beers... might apply to some brewers but then their are people like Pat McGovern and breweries like Dogfish Head who do know their arse from their elbow.. I am sure that deep knowledge applies, if not to all then to many "natural" wine makers too.

 

[Scooter68]

The issue is that some read Natural and they believe that means VERY natural, all the stuff left in, other than gross lees and ZERO additives. I know that isn't a truly accurate representation of what most(?) natural wine makers are trying to do.

Bottom line, if the wine isn't tasty, what the point. I always think back to those westerns in the saloon. The cowboy downs his glass of whiskey and through a breathless moment speaks "Smooooth" Yeah, right. I drink wine to enjoy the flavors, but I cannot imagine the appeal of flavors that are off or repelling to most taste buds.
To each his own variety but, lets not get silly. People did get sick and die from bad brews, bad food etc in the 'good ol days.' If your wine making desires are to abstain from all the chemicals, that's fine but that can also include some risks in terms of how long it will keep or what 'interesting' flavors will be there. It's a choice but no, thanks, within reason I'll stick to more modern methods of wine making. The OP's article points to some wines the, while natural, are not necessarily all that desirable to the average wine drinker.

If you haven't taken time to read the article you really should do so BEFORE posting responses. Some basic, and admittedly more strident comments from it are posted below. I believe that the majority of participants on this forum are trying to return from the overly modernized wines and return to more natural wine production BUT without reverting to the more extreme ends of the spectrum. I may be wrong but judging from the comments I've seen in the sections of this forum, I think that's not a far fetched interpretation. (My forum readings are 99% from Beginners Section, General Wine making, Recipes, and Country Fruit Wine making)


Pro Modern:

"...a glass of cloudy, noticeably sour white wine from a virtually unknown vineyard in France’s Loire Valley..."


“The weird and wonderful flavours will assault your senses with all sorts of wacky scents and quirky flavours.”


"Once you know what to look for, natural wines are easy to spot: they tend to be smellier, cloudier, juicier, more acidic and generally truer to the actual taste of grape than traditional wines. In a way, they represent a return to the core elements that made human beings fall in love with wine when we first began making it, around 6,000 years ago. Advocates of natural wine believe that nearly everything about the £130bn modern wine industry – from the way it is made, to the way critics police what counts as good or bad – is ethically, ecologically and aesthetically wrong."


But among wine critics, there is a deep suspicion that the natural wine movement is intent on tearing down the norms and hierarchies that they have dedicated their lives to upholding. The haziness of what actually counts as natural wine is particularly maddening to such traditionalists. “There is no legal definition of natural wine,” Michel Bettane, one of France’s most influential wine critics, told me. “It exists because it proclaims itself so. It is a fantasy of marginal producers.” Robert Parker, perhaps the world’s most powerful wine critic, has called natural wine an “undefined scam”.


Pro Natural:'

"Yet, as natural wine advocates point out, the way most wine is produced today looks nothing like this picture-postcard vision. Vineyards are soaked with pesticide and fertiliser to protect the grapes, which are a notoriously fragile crop. In 2000, a French government report noted that vineyards used 3% of all agricultural land, but 20% of the total pesticides. In 2013, a study found traces of pesticides in 90% of wines available at French supermarkets."

 

[Zintrigue]

As Gene Autry said to his horse Trigger: Whoa!!!!!

I wander how many people criticizing "natural wines" have actually tried that many. Or are just bashing based on this article alone?

I'm kind of in the camp that says "cloudy and sour" are not desirable traits. Like earlier posts said, fine wines can be produced "naturally," but to tout cloudy and sour as "natural" when there's fine products alongside it, I think there needs to be better labeling going on. Perhaps "Rough." haha

 

[Scooter68]

With regards to accuracy of the original story, one can only trust the comments of the writer based on their credentials, if any. But trying to be open minded, I consider at least one wine I love to be a little uncommon - Tart Cherry. I don't know that everyone would love just walking out to a tart (Pie) Cherry tree and feasting on those tart things,.... BUT I love them. Likewise my Tart cherry wine is pretty doggone tart and perhaps not something everyone would like. But I'll certainly admit that I may not be as open-minded as some folks - personally I've never had a red wine I liked, I love my strong fruit wines but not red grape wines. Just my preference.
Likewise if one is used to drinking a certain variety of wine made with modern methods and they find that the product of a more 'natural' approach is not to their liking, I'm not going to question their judgement.

 

[Slappy]

I very recently (last weekend) attended a venue here in South Australia that is well known for only having natural wines and using local produce in their kitchen etc. It's called the Aristologist at Summertown. Here I tried several wines including a light red that was reminiscent of grenache thats just starting to settle after ferment, an extended skin contact white wine that was quite interesting. I quite liked that one and would describe it as cidery as it had an apple/cidery tang to it that was actually pleasant. Also had a lightly sparkling white that seemed to be bottle fermented that had similar characteristics. All of those wines were slightly cloudy, a little cidery and had some volatile acidity however they were quite drinkable and I enjoyed them. I wouldn't make 300 bottles of like wine at home though. All seemed to be fermented, racked off gross lees and bottled straight from there to preserve all that 'naturalness' I guess. One wine stood out to me though. As soon as I was passed a glass I picked it as an Adelaide Hills Shiraz and I was correct. It was very fresh, young and vibrant and obviously had no oak. It was a bit thin with no real length but there was great berry fruit straight up and some tannins at the end, it was the mid palate that lacked any punch. This was a wine I'd happily drink every week, and with some aging and oak you'd probably have something more recognisable to someone who drinks commercial wine. Which is kinda what I'm aiming for as a winemaker.
I won't be mucking around with native yeasts as I think it's too risky and pure strain yeasts are cheap insurance. But I like the idea of minimal intervention and using biodynamic or organic grapes. I bottled a few left overs when I racked my 2018 Grenache the other week and this was 'natural' apart from the use of a commercial yeast. It is now all gone as everyone couldn't stop drinking it! The rest is getting some oak and very minimal sulfite additions while aging but that's it. I have some of the best quality grapes in the world at my doorstep so can be very choosey what I use. Which I think goes a long way to making good wines without using any adjuncts. Personally I do see the value in these natural wines even just as a counterpoint to the over commercialised mass produced stuff on most shelves. I think it has it's place and isn't simply difference for the sake of difference. Either way I can see it being more common in the markets where it's produced as shipping and storage would be the enemy.

 

[susieqz]

thanks, slap. it'd good to hear semi natural may work.

 

[REDRUM]

Sums up my thoughts perfectly Slappy.
There's room for all these approaches as far as I'm concerned, being dogmatic (about either 'natural' winemaking or technoscientific winemaking) does nobody any favours.

I very recently (last weekend) attended a venue here in South Australia that is well known for only having natural wines and using local produce in their kitchen etc. It's called the Aristologist at Summertown. Here I tried several wines including a light red that was reminiscent of grenache thats just starting to settle after ferment, an extended skin contact white wine that was quite interesting. I quite liked that one and would describe it as cidery as it had an apple/cidery tang to it that was actually pleasant. Also had a lightly sparkling white that seemed to be bottle fermented that had similar characteristics. All of those wines were slightly cloudy, a little cidery and had some volatile acidity however they were quite drinkable and I enjoyed them. I wouldn't make 300 bottles of like wine at home though. All seemed to be fermented, racked off gross lees and bottled straight from there to preserve all that 'naturalness' I guess. One wine stood out to me though. As soon as I was passed a glass I picked it as an Adelaide Hills Shiraz and I was correct. It was very fresh, young and vibrant and obviously had no oak. It was a bit thin with no real length but there was great berry fruit straight up and some tannins at the end, it was the mid palate that lacked any punch. This was a wine I'd happily drink every week, and with some aging and oak you'd probably have something more recognisable to someone who drinks commercial wine. Which is kinda what I'm aiming for as a winemaker.
I won't be mucking around with native yeasts as I think it's too risky and pure strain yeasts are cheap insurance. But I like the idea of minimal intervention and using biodynamic or organic grapes. I bottled a few left overs when I racked my 2018 Grenache the other week and this was 'natural' apart from the use of a commercial yeast. It is now all gone as everyone couldn't stop drinking it! The rest is getting some oak and very minimal sulfite additions while aging but that's it. I have some of the best quality grapes in the world at my doorstep so can be very choosey what I use. Which I think goes a long way to making good wines without using any adjuncts. Personally I do see the value in these natural wines even just as a counterpoint to the over commercialised mass produced stuff on most shelves. I think it has it's place and isn't simply difference for the sake of difference. Either way I can see it being more common in the markets where it's produced as shipping and storage would be the enemy.

 

[Obbnw]

• Vineyards farmed organically or biodynamically – certification was strongly preferred, but uncertified wines were accepted
• Hand-harvested only
• Fermentation with indigenous (wild) yeasts
• No enzymes
• No additives added (such as acid, tannin, colouring) other than SO2
• SO2 levels no higher than 70mg/l total
• Unfined, and no (or light) filtration
• No other heavy manipulation (such as spinning cone, reverse osmosis, cryoextraction, rapid-finishing, Ultraviolet C irradiation)"

I was searching for natural wine and found this thread - with the exception of wild yeasts my wine would qualify as natural. I'm afraid of the wild yeast but if I have a good crop of grapes this year I might experiment.

I do have the benefit of growing my own grapes and picking them when I think they should be picked. My harvest stretched out over almost 4 weeks. As far as acid balancing etc I just figured I'll get what I get. The filtering, fining etc seemed like a pain and they seemed clear pretty well on their own. I do get some sediment in the bottles, but not much. Plus I don't plan on aging any of the wine I make so I'm not worried about long term stability. At the rate I'm going I won't have any left by harvest time.

I'm a little surprised at the mostly negative response - I'd have guessed there would be more hobby type people looking to simplify but I couldn't imagine being a commercial operation and taking the risk.

Anyway - I'd love to know anyone's experience with the totally "natural" route. I put natural in quotes because I kind of agree with one of the posts above about what is natural.

 

[BernardSmith]

Hi obbnw - and welcome. I am simply a hobbyist and a maker of country wines and meads rather than someone who makes wines from grapes but my sense is that the appellation "natural" has as much to do with the idea that the focus of such wine making is on the fruit itself and on the terroir (the characteristics that result form the particulars of the location) rather than on processes and additives. The risks that such wine makers take - I think - they view as the cost of truly embracing the fruit grown. To disguise or mask the flavors of a wine by using lab cultured yeast or processes that "artificially" remove or enhance color, flavor, sweetness, mouthfeel, aroma or alcoholic concentration they view as processes more akin to factory rather than "natural" production. Their use of the term "natural" suggests to me not some kind of mistaken understanding of the difference between the natural world and the world of artifice and human activity but a real desire to treat the fruit, as it is, as heart and center of their wines. While brewers may claim that they only make the wort while it is the yeast that makes the beer, makers of natural wines might add that it is these grapes hosting those yeast that make this wine.